- FCPA Professor - https://fcpaprofessor.com -

Scrutiny Alerts And Updates

Honeywell

As highlighted in this prior post [1], in mid-2019 Honeywell disclosed that it was cooperating with DOJ/SEC and Brazilian law enforcement investigations relating to its use of third parties in relation to Petrobras business as well as a matter involving a foreign subsidiary’s prior engagement of Unaoil in Algeria.

As highlighted in this prior post [2], in July 2021 Honeywell disclosed:

“We have begun discussions with the authorities with respect to a potential resolution of these matters. As the discussions are ongoing, there can be no assurance as to whether we will reach a resolution with such authorities or as to the potential timing, terms, or collateral consequences of any such resolution. As a result, we cannot predict the outcome of these matters, the potential impact on the Company, or a reasonable estimate of losses or range of losses at this time.”

Honeywell recently disclosed [3]:

“Petrobras and Unaoil – We continue to cooperate with investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Brazilian authorities relating to our use of third parties who previously worked for our UOP business in Brazil in relation to Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras) in connection with a project awarded in 2010. The investigations focus on compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar Brazilian laws (the UOP Matters), and involve, among other things, document production and interviews with former and current management and employees. The DOJ and the SEC are also examining a matter involving a foreign subsidiary’s prior contract with Unaoil S.A.M. in Algeria executed in 2011. We continue to be engaged in discussions with the authorities with respect to a potential comprehensive resolution of these matters.

As the discussions are both ongoing and at different stages with regards to each respective authority, there can be no assurance as to whether we will reach a resolution with such authorities or as to the potential timing, terms, or collateral consequences of any such resolution. As a result, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these UOP Matters or the potential impact on the Company. Based on available information to date, we estimate that a potential comprehensive resolution of these UOP Matters would result in a probable loss of at least $160 million, and we have recorded a charge in this amount in our Consolidated Statement of Operations, and have accrued a corresponding liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Amounts payable to authorities pursuant to any potential final comprehensive resolution could differ from the amount recorded in our consolidated financial statements. Based on available information to date, we do not expect that any such difference would be material with respect to our consolidated financial position.”

Baker Hughes

The company has resolved an FCPA enforcement not just once, but twice (see here [4]), and in mid-2019 disclosed:

“In March 2019, the Company received a document request from the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) related to certain of the Company’s operations in Iraq and its dealings with Unaoil Limited and its affiliates. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ in connection with this request and any related matters. In addition, the Company has agreed to toll any statute of limitations in connection with the matters subject to the DOJ’s document request until December 2019.”

Baker Hughes recently disclosed [5]:

“In March 2019, the Company received a document request from the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) related to certain of the Company’s operations in Iraq and its dealings with Unaoil Limited and its affiliates. In December 2019, the Company received a similar document request from the SEC. The Company has cooperated with the DOJ and the SEC in connection with their requests and any related matters. On September 30, 2021, the Company was informed that the matter has been closed and no enforcement action has been taken.”

However, as highlighted in this prior post [6] in March 2021 Baker Hughes disclosed:

“In December 2020, the Company received notice that the SEC is conducting a formal investigation that the Company understands is related to its books and records and internal controls regarding sales of its products and services in projects impacted by U.S. sanctions. The Company is cooperating with the SEC and providing requested information. The Company has also initiated an internal review with the assistance of external legal counsel regarding internal controls and compliance related to U.S. sanctions requirements. The SEC’s investigation and the Company’s internal review are ongoing, and the Company cannot anticipate the timing, outcome or possible impact of the investigation or review, financial or otherwise.”

As to this issue, the company’s recent disclosure states:

“The Company is cooperating with the SEC and providing requested information. The Company has also initiated an internal review with the assistance of external legal counsel regarding internal controls and compliance related to U.S. sanctions requirements. While the Company’s review remains ongoing, in September 2021, the Company voluntarily informed the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) that non-U.S. Baker Hughes affiliates in two foreign countries appear to have received payments, involving U.S. touchpoints, that are subject to debt restrictions pursuant to applicable U.S. sanctions laws. Although the value of the payments in connection with the identified transactions is immaterial, the Company is unable to determine at this time if any remedial or other actions may be taken by OFAC. The Company provided a copy of the letter to the SEC, and, as the SEC investigation is ongoing, the Company cannot anticipate the timing, outcome or possible impact of the investigation or review, financial or otherwise.”

[7]